<gwalsh@bu.edu>

George B.N. Ayittey, _Africa in Chaos_.    New York:  St. Martin's, 1999.
xvi + 399 pp.   Bibliography, and index.    $18.95  (paperback),
ISBN-312-21787-0.

Reviewed for H-Africa by Marion E. Doro,  professor emeritus,
medor@conncoll.edu,  Department of Government,   Connecticut College.

                         Lecture or Sermon ?

Ayittey has given us a bitter _cri de coeur_ which will convince the
convinced and leave the unconvinced in a state of ambivalence and
skepticism. He begins by noting that despite its resources and
potential wealth, Africa  "...is inexorably mired in steaming squalor,
misery, deprivation, and chaos" (p.6). No observer of the African scene
would deny that many  African states suffer from this cluster of
dysfunctions.  But this journalistic account, from a renown academic, is
both lecture and sermon which are seemingly devoid of either hope or
redemption.  Noting the complexities of the African scene the author asks
the reader's indulgence for engaging in generalizations expressed in
non-technical language; the final effect appears to be a series of
critical conclusions based on uncritical use of selected evidence.

The thrust of Ayittey's argument is straightforward. He notes that
Africa's difficulties can be blamed on either external sources such as
colonialism or on internal ones arising out of corrupt leaders  who have
behaved selfishly, ignored indigenous modes of governance, and imitated
Western type political systems which are inappropriate modes of governance
for Africa.

Departing from the usual practice of blaming external forces Ayittey
adopts the "internalist" cause of African failures. This is not an
easy or popular choice. He begins by criticizing the Africans who
coped with colonial rule either by identifying with it or by imitating
it, or who conformed with its requirements.  He expresses disappointment
and contempt for the post-independence leaders who imitated European life
styles even in matters of the kinds of food they ate and houses they
lived in, as well as the socio-economic policies they adopted such as
dependence on the State as a major source of services, and retention of
westernized modes of education. In the author's view the more appropriate
alternative governmental institutions and policies were the pre-colonial
indigenous methods of governance which also required accountability and
other democratic procedures but in a manner consistent with traditional
culture.

His reactions are quite understandable courageous expressions of opinion.
But it is reasonable to ask how effective would the alternative methods
have been under the circumstances?  How relevant would they have
been to modern day Africa?  Could leaders have adapted Julius Nyerere's
old adage "the elders sit on a log and talk until they agree" to the
changing and imperative needs of new African states?  Were all the
indigenous traditional systems as effective and accountable as Ayittey
suggests?

The author points to the extensive corruption among leaders, mismanagement
of economic resources, human rights abuses, excesses of personal rule, all
of which are clusters of harmful forms of political behavior, all of which
interact negatively against the wellbeing of Africans. He uses the most
extreme cases to illustrate these charges -- Somalia, Burundi-Rwanda,
Liberia, Zaire.  Specific cases are offered as general patterns of
behavior.  He notes that basic ingredients  such as security, freedom,
incentives, a functioning infrastructure, are missing, and that the
consequences will be collapse and chaos. He cites various reform efforts
but despairs of their efficacy.  He characterizes aid from Western donors
as inadequate, misplaced, and ill-used.  He suggests solutions such as
promoting civil society, "modernizing the indigenous" (p. 311), and even
a buy-out option to encourage departure of African despots.

Turning to the intellectuals,  whom he claims  are "Africa's best hope"
(p. 348) he then criticizes  most of them for cooperating  with the
government. He labels them as "prostitutes" but offers little if any
substantive proof. He does not acknowledge that  intellectuals in African
universities are so poorly paid that they have to "moonlight" to earn a
decent living; that universities are so poorly financed that  even the
library collections are inadequate; that students are short-changed in
their education. Yet in the face of these circumstances there are
numerous faculty who endure deprivations in order to teach. They have
their flaws, but prostitution is not among them.  Ayittey does not even
acknowledge their existence.

Ayittey's pessimism is understandable, and he joins a chorus of equally
unhappy Africans who express their criticisms with a concerned courage.
But, this  also takes a pessimistic form which destroys or discourages
efforts to overcome problems.  And it neglects  other kinds of evidence
which suggests the picture is not entirely bleak.  See, for example,
David F. Gordon and Howard Wolpe [The Other Africa: an end to
Afro-pessimism, _World Policy Journal_,  Spring 1998, v. 15, n. 1, ]
who point out that South Africa, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Namibia are
engaged in reconciliation and nation building, that during 1996/97 there
were multiparty elections in  twenty-six African states, that the
aggregate growth rates  during 1995/96, doubled over the decade, that
infant mortality rates had declined, that Ghana had moved toward
responsible government and free/fair elections.

Other methods of "accountability" are emerging  and taking root, such as
the Uganda Parliament's watchdog  method of censuring  Cabinet members for
corrupt practices.  Or  grass roots efforts such as the Greenbelt Movement
in Kenya which has diligently acted to preserve the environment in the
face of hostile government policies.   Or the various   women's NGOs
elsewhere seeking reform of legislation relating to land ownership and
domestic relations. The moral of the story, however, is that readers
must find their way between the two positions.  Whether it is easier and
more comfortable to be hopeful  or more satisfying simply to be negative
is another story.  But, Ayittey's  dependence on  journalistic accounts,
the  minimal use of  Africanist studies  published in the 1990s,  and his
failure to note the emergence of a new generation of leaders  in the civil
society   results in   either  an Afropessimist lecture  to an
unidentified audience, or a warning sermon lacking a redemptive message.
Nevertheless, it is an important message which requires careful attention.
Is anyone listening?

Copyright 1999 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be
 copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given
 to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact
 h-net@h-net.msu.edu.

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS